tv [untitled] May 16, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
now, we bring to a delivery truck easement and easement and purchase of sales agreement. this is required for the successful operation of the grocer element of this project. granting of the easement will facilitate the avalon bay development across the new league avenue extension -- lee avenue extension. this is a very general look across the area. ocean on the lower part of the map. lee avenue extension shown where i am indicating. in the orange or red color, the affordable housing. to the north of that, you see the truck easement. to the left of the extension, you see the development side. this was specifically enable us to move forward with a 26,000 square foot whole foods program for the avalon mixed use project.
the project includes 173 housing units as well. this project, particularly the resolution before you today, is consistent with the final environmental impact report and mitigation monitoring program of the balboa park station area plan that was adopted by the planning commission on december 4, 2008, and by the board of supervisors in may of 2009. specifically, this is a 3360 square foot easement. this is just a blowup of the extension, and where i am indicating, the turnaround truck easement. this was valued at $171,360. that is based on an independent third-party appraisal of the adjacent property. additionally, owed to the redevelopment agency as a result of the impacts to the affordable housing parcel, is the sum of
$706,832. this represents the net present value of initial capital and ongoing annual costs, primarily to provide attenuation and visual screening. items such as window treatments, landscaped buffers, pavement repairs, security fencing, interior wall acoustical improvements. avalon has agreed to the substantive terms and conditions of the easement, purchase of sale agreement, and the delivery truck easement including delivery package and sfmta board and the redevelopment commission have all taken action to approve these documents. i am fortunate to be joined by staff from several city departments that had a hand in bringing this forward as well as the development dreams from either side of leigh ave. collectively, we are all happy to answer any questions you may have about the project. supervisor mar: i know that
there may bottom be -- may be comments, but can you talk to any amendments related to the concerns of the labor organizations? >> i am going to turn to my developer partners on that. supervisor mar: supervisor elsbernd? ok, then why don't we open this up for public -- oh. looks like there's no one here to -- we will listen to public testimony and go from there. i have two cards. [reading names] >> good afternoon, supervisors.
i am a business agent for international brotherhood of electrical workers local 6. we are speaking against this resolution simply because avalon day developers -- they are not irresponsible developer. we regret that at the beginning of this project, we supported them. ended up supporting one of the largest contractors -- they are not helping our labor, and we are speaking against this project, this resolution. i hope you keep it in a consideration. thank you.
>> good afternoon, board of supervisors. thank you for allowing me time to speak. i am with painters and allied trades district 16, local union 913, painters and dry wall finishes, san francisco, california. we rise in opposition to the fact that the developer, as the previous speaker stated, refuses to pay the area standards in wages that have been established by the city and county of san francisco. we thank you for your consideration to this matter. >> can i just ask one question -- edge as one of the clear -- your opposition to this is not for many traffic impact to the new extension, any environmental impact, or any community, neighborhood immediate impact -- it is the sole issue of the labor issue? >> yes, the labor issue immediately impacting the local neighborhood as well as -- >> fair enough. supervisor mar: is there anyone
else from the public that would like to speak? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i represent the affordable housing alliance, and we are in support of this project. we have supported most affordable housing projects in san francisco. we supported several predecessor project to this location, which failed, one of which was subject it to a referendum back in the 1980's, which lost. we think this is an example of a location where it makes sense and is generally a good idea. i cannot speak to the specific issues of the contractors and the labor issues, but i would just point out that this is an example of true infill housing an example of what is going on in octavia and in mission bay and in hunters point and treasure island where new housing is being developed, but no existing community is being
destroyed. that is an important distinction to us. thank you very much. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a member of the ocean avenue revitalization collaborative and a member also of the new ocean avenue association. i would like to point out that these plans are not new to the neighborhood and that we have been informed of them and talk about them over a number of years and a series of meetings. the better neighborhoods plan for the avalon a property itself any plans for that and what it would take to make a car for supermarket in san francisco on our street, and also in terms of the impact on the side of the turnaround, the phelan project
for the affordable housing and the plaza. i have never heard an objection to this on any terms in the neighborhood, so we are looking forward to the project going ahead. we hope the disputes can be figured out so that we might have the supermarket we have been waiting for for many years. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i just wanted to speak on the issue of building up on existing corridors. in regards to the project, this is a great example of housing along existing corridors. there's a lot of one-story buildings on ocean avenue and on west portal, and if we have existing infrastructure there, we should be repairing it and building such projects along all the existing corridors. this is where you look at where
you place it. way you have in besides, one- story buildings, or areas where you can build adjacent to existing transit. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. in the housing director at the bernal heights neighborhood center, and we are building a housing development adjacent to the property. i am speaking in favor of the action. we have been working with avalon bay to quantify the impact of this truck easement on our housing parcel and working in terms of defining the hours of operation for our family -- affordable family building. they have been working with us in good faith, and i think we have come to mutually agreeable terms that are spelled out in this document. everyone has been a good partner with us for the most part. i cannot speak to the date -- to the labor disputes, but i do hope they are able to work things out.
thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. is there anyone else? please come forward. >> good afternoon. i will address the union, as we have heard today. i do not have to believe that these are difficult economic times. we have committed to our funders that we start the project in 2010, which we did last year, and as such, to make it work, we have run the job open shop, which means we go with the lowest qualified bidder. i do want to point out that today, 40% of our contracts are with union labor. and also invite the board and the union to address me directly about this issue. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. if there is no one else that would like to speak. >> good afternoon land use and
economic development committee. i want to express my opinion on the 110559 -- supervisor mar: please pull the microphone closer to your mouth. >> the easement being asked to be granted. i want to oppose that because i feel that any type of disruption of the neighborhood and up parkmerced is totally wrong -- supervisor mar: this is about ocean avenue. >> it would extend all in there with the traffic would be upset and move apart and changed. we do not want any of that to go on. we do not want any houses torn down. thank you very much. supervisor mar: if there's no one else that would like to speak, public comment is closed. colleagues, are there questions? my hope is that the two locals
will work with supervisor elsbernd's office to try to address some of those issues. my understanding is that this easement would help with the supermarket to be built in the neighborhood that really needs it as well as the affordable housing and the market rate housing that will be in this transit-rich area, so i will just say that i am very supportive of the project, but i hope some of the issues can be discussed at least by the project sponsors. are there any other questions, or is there a motion? supervisor elsbernd: i just thank you very much. i think you have done a very good job of summarizing this. i'll be happy to continue to try to work on some of these issues. i would just remind the committee that three or four weeks ago, we weigh in on the issue in unanimously voted for a resolution, so i think the board is as much on record as we can be about our concerns. that said, thank you for
recognizing that this little piece here, the easement, is critical to something that residents along ocean avenue have been clamoring for for nearly 25 or 30 years. that is bringing back a grocery store. years ago, there was a grocery store. >> i want to of knowledge that representing a community that does not have a grocery store is -- there are some inherent challenges in living and raising your family around the community where there is no grocery store. i am actually in favor of this resolution. however, i am sensitive also to the issues that the labor unions have raised. in my own district, i am dealing with a grocery store that is also caught up in a labor dispute. [inaudible]
i know it is a long haul. supervisor mar: colleagues, i would like to make a motion that we move this forward with a positive recommendation and that the two locals work with supervisor elsbernd's office and others to try to address their concerns, but i move that we move this forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor wiener: given everything we have heard today, perhaps we could just move it forward without a recommendation, and that will maybe give supervisor elsbernd and supervisor avalos time to work with the project sponsor and trades to work something out. supervisor mar: i will withdraw my motion and say i am supportive of supervisor wiener 's. supervisor wiener: that will be a motion to move forward to the board without a recommendation. supervisor mar: without objection, colleagues. thank you. could you please call items two through five together? that item two, or bits of pork
-- moving in development agreement with parkmerced developer district. item three, or that it's an and the planning code to include the planning district to establish a special use district. item four, ordered its amending the zoning map to reflect the special use district. item five, or in its amended the general plan by amending the urban design element with design -- with respect to the parkmerced site. supervisor mar: thank you. as i mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, we are not going to take action on these items because they need to be properly notice, and they will be continued for action on tuesday, may 24, at 9:00 a.m. but i know that there are a number of stakeholder groups and others that are here, so we are going to do our best to listen to as much of the testimony but also have comments from colleagues as well.
this is another item sponsored by supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i defer to you on this, how you would like to handle this. i have some technical amendments that need to be made to the ordinance creating the special use district. additionally, there are some clarifying findings in regards to ceqa that need to be made to all the ordinances, so whether or not you would like to do that now or you would like to hear exactly what those are from staff and get a presentation, or if you would like. supervisor mar: let me just ask -- what would you recommend on proceeding with the amendment? >> deputy city attorney. it is really your preference. there is not a right or wrong way to proceed here. supervisor mar: i think a summary of the amendments would be useful right now.
supervisor elsbernd: i would ask you to do the special use district, and then marlena on the ceqa issues. >> good afternoon, supervisors. office of economic and workforce development. our office has been working as well on treasure island special use district, and in the process of that work with the city attorney's office, several procedural clarifications involving noticing and filing of applications were identified in the original draft special use district forepart merced -- for parkmerced. they're technical in nature, and the city advise that we approve them to improve the functionality of the ordinance, so they are in black line form. none of them are substantive in nature. supervisor elsbernd: do you have anything else you wanted to add to supplement that?
>> deputy city attorney. i can go through the amendments line by line if the committee is interested, or i have an additional amendment that needs to be made to all of the ordinances to add additional language to the ceqa findings clarifying that the board of supervisors is adopting by reference the planning commission ceqa approval findings. supervisor elsbernd: if you would not mind, because we have so many people from the public who are interested in this, i think it would be of benefit to everybody if she could go through that. >> certainly. in the document you have in front of you, the first amendment is on page one, which is the amendment i just made -- not made, but mentioned regarding the ceqa findings, which clarifies that the board will be adopting, said they approve this project, the approval findings that the
planning commission already made. the next amendment -- proposed amendment, rather, can be found on page four of the documents are provided, which is to planning code -- new planning code section 249.64, subsection a. we deleted all the references to block and lot numbers and instead just referred to the parkmerced special use district, which will be adopted by the conforming amendments being made to the zoning maps. a block and lot numbers, should the project be approved, will eventually be changed as part of the project. so it seemed confusing to include the old ones here. the exchange can be found -- skipping ahead. to page 16, which is subsection -- i believe it is small d2.
this added a 15-day staff review period for supplemental materials provided and also clarified what type of application materials should be included when the project sponsor actually moves forward with design for specific buildings in the project. the next amendments are on the following page. section small d3. this regard to the timing of the planning department's staff review of the project, that they must do the review the 60 days after the project is complete and also that they need to deliver a staff report to the planning -- rather to the applicant no less than 10 days prior to planning director are planning commission action on a specific building proposal. additionally, the next subsection, d4, capital a, there was an edition of the general
plan in the planning director's review sow the planning director would have to make sure that any codes, project conform not only to the parkmerced design standards and guidelines, but also to the general plan. clarifying that. in the same subsection, this also provides for a notice provision once the planning director has made his determination on a minor projects, that the planning director within send out notice within a 300-foot radius, and also to anyone who requested such notice. in the next subsection, for public hearings for large projects, this clarifies that if the planning commission is required to have a hearing both for a large project approval and for a major modification, that that be done at the same hearing so we do not have duplication of hearings. the next change is on the following page.
which regards notice of hearing. this provides that notice be made for any hearings for the planning commission for either major modifications or large projects with the 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the properties and also that it be posted on site. previously, notice was also required to be made -- or currently in the draft that is before the board, notice is required to be made in a newspaper of general circulation 20 days prior to the hearing. that has been removed. the only place that occurs in the planning code right now is where there is a general plan amendment, and it seems strange to include it here for projects where similar notice is not required anywhere else. i will not go into why i think it was in there. it is an odd provision for a project modification. skipping ahead so that general
newspaper notice has been removed for a project. under the subsection dealing with appeals and decisions on appeals, we also wanted to add an amendment clarifying that although most appeals of any decision of either the planning director or planning commission would go to the board of appeals, if it were conditional use under these approvals, that would still come to the board of supervisors under the regular conditional use appeals process, although i think that would have been the case regardless, it is good to have the clarifying language in here. i believe that is the last change, but let me make sure. yes, that is the final proposed amendment. supervisor mar: could you explain or define what a major modification is compared to a non-major modification? >> certainly. it is defined in the ordinance
-- let's see, it is actually discussed both in subsection c2 and also in the table immediately following it, provides descriptions of different types of major modifications. these types of modifications would need to be approved by the planning commission -- yes, by the planning commission at a public hearing. and these essentially deal with where there is a large change being made from what would be more approvable, and the minor modifications would be approval by the planning director. as you can see in figure three, it is essentially development blocks and easements, a deviation of 10% or more from dimensional standards for live coverage and usable open space, a deviation from 10% or more
from america standards set forth. for book and massing, again, deviation of 10% from numerical standards set forth. for bicycle parking and car schering, a modification of any standards set forth in the parkmerced design standards and guidelines and for loading and services, anything set forward in the parkmerced design standards and guidelines. supervisor mar: is there anything else? supervisor elsbernd: for members of the public, i am having my office print out copies of this. we will have a stack here as soon as they are ready. i imagine this will go back up on the parkmerced web site, and if anyone would like to e-mail me, i can e-mail you an electronic version. supervisor mar: we do not have
public comment yet. we are not going to public comment yet. supervisor, is there anything else? supervisor elsbernd: that would be it. this would be, as i said, readily available for the public to review. supervisor mar: if there is nothing else, was there anything else? >> i did have a very brief presentation, and i did want to clarify to the members of the committee that redline revisions were also submitted to the draft development agreement itself, not the ordinance, but the development agreement itself, which was posted by the clerk on friday. i did want to briefly summarize those for the public, and i wanted to emphasize that copies will be available by the end of the day on the planning department website as well, per our usual practice. they were posted with the clerk. i want to clarify on friday, however, as required by the
city, by the board rules. supervisor mar: just to remind everyone, items two, three, four, and five were called altogether. develop an agreement as item two. ms. byrne read the amendments for the special use district, which is item three, i believe. item four is the zoning map amendment, and item 5 is the general plan amendment. if there is no other comments, colleagues, i am going to open public comment, and i have a stack of cards. we are limiting it to two minutes per person. >> i would like to briefly summarize for the public, there are some minor revisions that were made so that they are aware. as i emphasized, they are posted with the clerk, and there will be -- they will be on the planning department website. minor changes were made to two
exhibits of the development agreement. the transit subsidy agreement, and the power generation agreement. these are two and celery agreements to the development agreement. -- two ancillary agreements to the development agreement. the transit subsidy agreement clarifies the commitments already made to providing a permanent transit subsidy for every new unit on the project site and explains how sfmta will administer the program over time. we are in ongoing discussions with the san francisco public utilities commission on the implementation of the sustainable power generation requirements in the sustainability plan. if you recall from our previous presentation before the committee, the project sponsor committed to effectively a 10% power generation commitment of renewable energy and 10%
commitment for cogen or energy derived from co-generation. these are commitments above and beyond san francisco's existing standards for renewable energy and conservation. that agreement is undergoing revisions based on feedback from sfpuc staff, and we will be submitting additional revisions this coming friday to the clerk took just concerns raised by sfpuc staff on the structure of the agreement. again, it is based on the sustainability plan, which this committee and planning commission has previously reviewed. in addition to those revisions to those exhibits, changes were made to address concerns about the existing preschool site. as many of